Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.

I guess I need to be more specific. the entry fee I am talking about is your starting level-zones, districts, whatever-entry fee.

in B.C. its just under $400/team (that includes the CCA gouge fee known as your player card). the penalty fee I refer to is an additional charge, tacked on by your provincial association to any team with an out of province athlete.

This is separate and has nothing to do with any other event entry fee.

10 years ago people complained about mens teams parachuting into zones here in Ontario. Now, no one bats an eye at mens teams cherry picking the best clubs to play out of now. I personally feel it will be the same for residency rules. Myself, I would prefer the best players being able to play together if they want and don't think it matters that they can parachute into a province. Competition will level out. Club curlers are not going to be competing for national championships anymore (they really haven't for a number of years anyways). So any measures to reduce the big team effect is years too late and pointless. Let the teams for and play where they are willing to pay the entry fees and club fees. No residency rules at all.

quote:Originally posted by SooCurler 10 years ago people complained about mens teams parachuting into zones here in Ontario. Now, no one bats an eye at mens teams cherry picking the best clubs to play out of now. I personally feel it will be the same for residency rules. Myself, I would prefer the best players being able to play together if they want and don't think it matters that they can parachute into a province. Competition will level out. Club curlers are not going to be competing for national championships anymore (they really haven't for a number of years anyways). So any measures to reduce the big team effect is years too late and pointless. Let the teams for and play where they are willing to pay the entry fees and club fees. No residency rules at all.

This has zero to do with club curlers. it's about penalizing those who ignore the tons of local talent and thus hinder the development of other players.

The rules currently allow one player so it can't be stopped. but it shouldn't be, IMO, for free.

That's correct. an additional 'out of province player fee' tacked on to the regular entry fee.

Thanks for clarifying. Now that I have the info, I will give my opinion and reasoning, and then my thoughts on why I do not like your penalty approach. I would say that I would be against any type of fee as it would discriminate against those who are poor. There are many reasons why a free agent should be allowed without penalty, such as living on a border, being a part time student and part time employee in an area, or even being a nomadic employee (someone who travels to find seasonal work such as at a ski resort in winter and farm in summer). This list is huge. There would be almost no way to fairly come up with a rule that does not have logical ways to skirt the system. If you insisted on a fee, then perhaps something like $50 or a token amount.

It is my guess that you feel that with a $4K fee you will stop the behavior. My guess is that it would not stop anything for people who are wealthy, only those who are poor. Plus the knife slices both directions. For every 1 curler your areas exports, you can import another. Ultimately it is a zero sum game that way.

If you want to end free agency, then tie players to a zone, or install a waiting period. By this, I am suggesting that once you play in a playdown, you must wait 12 months before you can play in another one. Or maybe you make it 24 months. If you have freedom to install these fines, you can use the waiting period and it will be even more effective, as rich people could not get around it.

quote:Originally posted by SooCurler 10 years ago people complained about mens teams parachuting into zones here in Ontario. Now, no one bats an eye at mens teams cherry picking the best clubs to play out of now. I personally feel it will be the same for residency rules. Myself, I would prefer the best players being able to play together if they want and don't think it matters that they can parachute into a province. Competition will level out. Club curlers are not going to be competing for national championships anymore (they really haven't for a number of years anyways). So any measures to reduce the big team effect is years too late and pointless. Let the teams for and play where they are willing to pay the entry fees and club fees. No residency rules at all.

If your suggestion is to also abolish the representation of provinces/territories, then your model makes sense (although I, personally, don't agree with it).
But if you are saying that there should be no residency rules, while still playing the National Championships (Brier, Scotties) under provincial and territorial representations (Team Manitoba, Team PEI, etc.), then what you say makes no sense at all. If there are no residency rules, and it matters not where players are from, then it's completely ridiculous to have teams representing provinces and territories. It would be like the Winnipeg Jets playing out of Halifax, and still being named the Winnipeg Jets.

__________________"It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

quote:Originally posted by On The Nose
If your suggestion is to also abolish the representation of provinces/territories, then your model makes sense (although I, personally, don't agree with it).
But if you are saying that there should be no residency rules, while still playing the National Championships (Brier, Scotties) under provincial and territorial representations (Team Manitoba, Team PEI, etc.), then what you say makes no sense at all. If there are no residency rules, and it matters not where players are from, then it's completely ridiculous to have teams representing provinces and territories. It would be like the Winnipeg Jets playing out of Halifax, and still being named the Winnipeg Jets.

I don't see why you think it would be odd. The team can form and play in the province and club of their choosing. If all four are from BC and they join and play for a club in Peterborough Ontario what's the problem? Firstly its a moot concern since no one is going to do that. At most teams will keep to the territories that work for them from a travel perspective. Second, they will be playing out of an Ontario club therefore establishing themselves as being form Ontario. Whether they are from Ontario themselves makes no difference. The hockey analogy doesn't work. It is actually the Winnipeg jets playing games in Halifax and calling themselves the Halifax Jets while all the players live in Winnipeg during the off season.

I would love to see a cohesive argument for residency rules in the first place. If we concede that protecting club teams is a non-starter, then allowing teams to parachute into the province isn't a concern. The next argument I saw was that it prevents local talent from being used by local star teams. This is also a non-starter. The WCT level teams aren't a training ground for local talent. Teams should be allowed to form as they see fit and not be forced to take on lesser players to meet artificial training quotas.

Thanks for clarifying. Now that I have the info, I will give my opinion and reasoning, and then my thoughts on why I do not like your penalty approach. I would say that I would be against any type of fee as it would discriminate against those who are poor. There are many reasons why a free agent should be allowed without penalty, such as living on a border, being a part time student and part time employee in an area, or even being a nomadic employee (someone who travels to find seasonal work such as at a ski resort in winter and farm in summer). This list is huge. There would be almost no way to fairly come up with a rule that does not have logical ways to skirt the system. If you insisted on a fee, then perhaps something like $50 or a token amount.

It is my guess that you feel that with a $4K fee you will stop the behavior. My guess is that it would not stop anything for people who are wealthy, only those who are poor. Plus the knife slices both directions. For every 1 curler your areas exports, you can import another. Ultimately it is a zero sum game that way.

If you want to end free agency, then tie players to a zone, or install a waiting period. By this, I am suggesting that once you play in a playdown, you must wait 12 months before you can play in another one. Or maybe you make it 24 months. If you have freedom to install these fines, you can use the waiting period and it will be even more effective, as rich people could not get around it.

Your 'zero-sum' theory is based on the presumption of equal player transfers which, as anyone can see has not happened (who left BC when John Morris parachuted here?).

And the idea of a $4000.00 is directly with rich teams in mind. They are the teams who currently parachute players because they already have more money than poor teams who don't bring in players. So why on earth would you have a low fee?

Poorer teams would get some measure of protection with the deterrent of a high fee to the rich and even if they pay, then the money goes to a decent cause.

Your 'zero-sum' theory is based on the presumption of equal player transfers which, as anyone can see has not happened (who left BC when John Morris parachuted here?).

And the idea of a $4000.00 is directly with rich teams in mind. They are the teams who currently parachute players because they already have more money than poor teams who don't bring in players. So why on earth would you have a low fee?

Poorer teams would get some measure of protection with the deterrent of a high fee to the rich and even if they pay, then the money goes to a decent cause.

I've said it before and I'm not the only one to say it again..

John Morris is the best example as it applies to BEFORE the one player allowed. Cheater extraordinaire.. BC curl along with Curling Canada both in Cahoots and all for illegal player, paid by curl bc to prevent BC from going into relegation. If either claim innocence I call BS. Both entities knew full well exactly what was going on...and where was Alberta Curling association in all this. Why didn't they call BS knowing John was a full time fireman in Alberta, How is it possible to live and curl FULL TIME IN BC? The biggest farce by far EVER with fake residency. He never lived in BC, never worked in BC, never had a year long paycheck from BC, never had a drivers license from BC, never had a paid rental from BC......yet they all "let it go" for 2 YEARS!!!!!!!!!! Wink wink nudge nudge. Terrible beginning of the end.

jamcan, you missed most of my point. a large sum of money is not a deterrant to those well funded and/or rich. Those people can pay the large fee no problems. You need to decide if you think the fee is a deterrant, or if it is just a revenue grab. If you want it to be a revenue grab, sure go ahead. But as a deterrent, it will be 100% ineffective except for the poor. So all a large fee does is disproportionately take away options from the poor, yet does nothing to truly prevent the issue which is making you mad

Wasn't the Bodnarchuk rink a bigger case of fraudulent BC residence? Dale Duguid and a brother of Kevin Park were not BC residents although they sort of qualified. However they didn't win so not as big a story.

quote:Originally posted by SooCurler I don't see why you think it would be odd.

Originally posted by SooCurler I would love to see a cohesive argument for residency rules in the first place.

Again, as I stated in my first post in this thread (one of the first 5 or 10 posts), if curling is to hold a National Championship (Brier, Scotties) pitting the provinces and territories against each other, then the players who represent said provinces and territories need be from the province/territory they are representing for the tournament to have any credibility at all.

Otherwise, it's like Canadians playing for the Korean National hockey team - just because they've lived in South Korea for a few years. If they win a game, is it truly Korea who won, if there are 8 or 10 Canadians on the team? Of course not - it is, in truth, a Korean/Canadian team, not a Korean team.
Same goes for the curling National Championships here in Canada - the idea is to pit the provinces and territories against each other. If it matters not where the players are from, and only matters which club they 'play out of' (on paper), then the entire notion of the provinces and territories playing against each other for the National title is fraudulent, and is completely thrown out the window.

__________________"It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

You analogies don't work for me, I'm sorry. Obtaining citizenship at the world stage is all that is required. A country could theoretically grant citizenship without requiring anything and that person could play on the world teams.

I don't see the difference between requiring someone to live in a province and requiring them to play out of the province? Why is it fraudulent to not live there while competing there? Because a team might leave a harder province for an easier one? That is born out of the current unenforced system where some people follow the rules while others break them. Remove the rules and the "market" will correct itself and the realities of travel in Canada. The teams are still paying club fees, provincial fees and Curling Canada fees. So its not like they are cheating the system that way.

Explain to me how it is fraudulent without using another analogy. Or use one and I will probably have to explain why the analogy falls apart. I am failing to see any concrete reasoning why its inherently unfair to allow free movement between provinces.

quote:Originally posted by curlky jamcan, you missed most of my point. a large sum of money is not a deterrant to those well funded and/or rich. Those people can pay the large fee no problems. You need to decide if you think the fee is a deterrant, or if it is just a revenue grab. If you want it to be a revenue grab, sure go ahead. But as a deterrent, it will be 100% ineffective except for the poor. So all a large fee does is disproportionately take away options from the poor, yet does nothing to truly prevent the issue which is making you mad

I read your post very clearly curlky. I just don't agree with your logic.

You fail to understand that poor teams are already penalized-because its the rich few who are importing players not poor teams.

The wealthier teams are the ones bringing in the out of province players because they are the ones who can afford.

All these posts arguing about the rules or who cheated or is cheating are meaningless. Why? because the CCA and the provinces are allowing, under the rules, teams to bring in the one player.

And, as I clearly pointed out in the opening post of the thread, allowing any non-local athletes to parachute into your region/province/territory is detrimental to the development of local athetes.

So, neither you nor I nor any poster on this site can change that rule. But, as I also stated, the least that we can do is charge those teams a penalty fee for denying an opportunity to local athletes. That's what this thread is about.

And any monies derived from those penalty fees would go to where they would assist development of juniors.

Call it a deterrent-because it might cause some rich teams to reconsider parting with 4 grand-or a revenue grab if you wish. Makes zero-sum (lol) difference to me.

Have been reading this thread and havenâ€™t figured where itâ€™s coming from , where itâ€™s going, and none of it seems in any way rational given the current status of the curling world. Everything in life evolves and rarely does it revert how things were decades ago.

quote:Originally posted by SooCurler You analogies don't work for me, I'm sorry. Obtaining citizenship at the world stage is all that is required. A country could theoretically grant citizenship without requiring anything and that person could play on the world teams.

I don't see the difference between requiring someone to live in a province and requiring them to play out of the province? Why is it fraudulent to not live there while competing there? Because a team might leave a harder province for an easier one? That is born out of the current unenforced system where some people follow the rules while others break them. Remove the rules and the "market" will correct itself and the realities of travel in Canada. The teams are still paying club fees, provincial fees and Curling Canada fees. So its not like they are cheating the system that way.

Explain to me how it is fraudulent without using another analogy. Or use one and I will probably have to explain why the analogy falls apart. I am failing to see any concrete reasoning why its inherently unfair to allow free movement between provinces.

Because, quite simply, as I've repeatedly stated, the purpose of the National Championships (Scotties, Brier) is to pit provinces and territories against each other. If anyone is permitted to play for any province simply by virtue of signing a piece of paper, that inherently and undeniably undermines and dismantles the entire premise - and integrity - of the National Championship.
If you don't understand that simple concept, it must be because of personal bias against understanding anything that does not suit your agenda, because you're obviously intelligent enough to understand it.

If you wish to conduct a National Championship which is completely wide open, and not pitting provinces/territories against each other, then your model would work fine - and, in theory, the National Championship could have all participating teams coming from one province to determine the best team in the Nation.

But that is not the current formula or structure. And so, to respect the current structure of provinces/territories competing against each other, players representing a given province/territory should possess a strong link to and be from said province/territory, as well as honestly playing within it.
For, if their origin is irrelevant, then where does it stop? Why should one even have to be Canadian to play in the National Championship? Can someone born and bred in Minnesota, having visited Canada once for 2 weeks when he was 8 years old, play in the Alberta provincial playdowns, and then go on to represent Alberta in the Brier if he can manage to get paperwork accomplished that he 'lives in' Edmonton and 'plays out of' an Edmonton curling club?

We need to uphold the integrity of the purpose of the National Championship. Your model most certainly does not accomplish this.

__________________"It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

It will be interesting to see when the first team in Canada eschews the national championships for the sake of putting together a team to make the Olympics.

With a growing Grand Slam circuit, more events in Europe and Asia, you could be a top flight "Tour" team and easily make the trials (I don't know if there are residency requirements for the Canada Cup, for instance).

The mercenary model of golf (wide open national championships) is perhaps not far off.

No other country hosts a National championship that limits the amount of top teams that can play in it.

After missing the podium at the Olympics in both men's and women's curling, the people that hold the purse strings for sport funding will be asking why Canada is choosing the limit the development of their best teams.

Things will change and this whole idea of charging for one import player will be the least of your concerns.

quote:Originally posted by Gerry No other country hosts a National championship that limits the amount of top teams that can play in it.

After missing the podium at the Olympics in both men's and women's curling, the people that hold the purse strings for sport funding will be asking why Canada is choosing the limit the development of their best teams.

Things will change and this whole idea of charging for one import player will be the least of your concerns.

First of all there are NO OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE CANADA. Most have 20 curlers where we have 1000's of clubs. NO COMPARISON.

Are you suggesting changes have already been made?

All well and good but bastardizing the Brier and Scotties for the sake of PERCEIVED better outcomes at the Olympics will be the final nail not only in the ground roots of curling in Canada, but all competitive teams forsake the 5-8 professional teams that seem to play every week on tour and at the slams. Curling in Canada is literally dying. The elderly crowds at the Brier and Scotties are dying off and NOT being replaced by new curlers or new curling fans. Just look at this slam. Ghost town again. Every slam is a ghost town. If there's 200 people it's a success. That includes the drinkers in the lounge and the school kids they bus in.. The Brier and Scotties keep looking for smaller venues to make it look full.

None of this would even be in discussion if not for no medals other than mixed at the Olympics.

My opinion only, too much emphasis on the Olympics is killing curling Canada. It's not the END OF THE WORLD if we don't win against state funded teams, or other professional teams.

It's a matter of time before the redcoats see the almighty dollar for tv and Olympic funding is more important than maintaining the growth and support for the sport. I'll predict here and now that Curling Canada in their genius remove all provincial restrictions, killing all NATIONAL REGIONALLY REPRESENTED championships, just to keep their jobs and their perks.

I just hope to God they bring it before their constituents before they force the vote through with NO consultation like they did the stupid relegation from years past.

Why on earth would you jeopardize the health of the sport and the health of 100's of curling clubs that are the heart of their communities, for the sake of a medal??????

First of all there are NO OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE CANADA. Most have 20 curlers where we have 1000's of clubs. NO COMPARISON.

Are you suggesting changes have already been made?

All well and good but bastardizing the Brier and Scotties for the sake of PERCEIVED better outcomes at the Olympics will be the final nail not only in the ground roots of curling in Canada, but all competitive teams forsake the 5-8 professional teams that seem to play every week on tour and at the slams. Curling in Canada is literally dying. The elderly crowds at the Brier and Scotties are dying off and NOT being replaced by new curlers or new curling fans. Just look at this slam. Ghost town again. Every slam is a ghost town. If there's 200 people it's a success. That includes the drinkers in the lounge and the school kids they bus in.. The Brier and Scotties keep looking for smaller venues to make it look full.

None of this would even be in discussion if not for no medals other than mixed at the Olympics.

My opinion only, too much emphasis on the Olympics is killing curling Canada. It's not the END OF THE WORLD if we don't win against state funded teams, or other professional teams.

It's a matter of time before the redcoats see the almighty dollar for tv and Olympic funding is more important than maintaining the growth and support for the sport. I'll predict here and now that Curling Canada in their genius remove all provincial restrictions, killing all NATIONAL REGIONALLY REPRESENTED championships, just to keep their jobs and their perks.

I just hope to God they bring it before their constituents before they force the vote through with NO consultation like they did the stupid relegation from years past.

Why on earth would you jeopardize the health of the sport and the health of 100's of curling clubs that are the heart of their communities, for the sake of a medal??????
You are so right. Hard to believe Gerry's post. I thought he had more respect for the game.

quote:Originally posted by Gerry No other country hosts a National championship that limits the amount of top teams that can play in it.

After missing the podium at the Olympics in both men's and women's curling, the people that hold the purse strings for sport funding will be asking why Canada is choosing the limit the development of their best teams.

Things will change and this whole idea of charging for one import player will be the least of your concerns.

Let's stop right there Gerry. I've been a member on this site for years now and I do understand that you make an awful lot of money in promoting what you see as the future of the sport-even though we disagree on many aspects of what changes should be made and how to about putting them into play.

But after reading this post of yours I am incredibly disappointed in you.
Because what you posted is an outright, blatant lie that is disrespectful to the process used to determine our National Champions.

National Championships start at the zone and provincial levels, Where there is absolutely zero limit to the amount of teams that can compete for the National Championship of Canada. There is no prejudicial rules that exclude any teams of any ability level from competing.

That's right Gerry, ZERO limits on the amount of teams and ZERO rules on what teams can enter.

So your statement that we limit the amount of top teams that can compete in our National Championships? An outright, blatant, misleading and frankly disgusting falsehood

Our country has the single, most fairest national competition of any country in the world, and it should stay that way.

Right now, any group of players can form a team, in any part of the country and simply enter the competition. Tell me what other countries offer that?

How many countries let coaches, not players in open competitions, decide who represents them on the World and Olympic stage? Look at the stupidity of the US Nationals as a perfect example. Beat every so called tour team, earn the right to be the best in your country but because of some coaches subjective opinion and the ability of a few teams to pay their way onto the tour and you stay at home watching some rich kids miss the playoffs wearing the flag you won.

Your problem, and the problem of a select, wealthy, elitist few who have risen to dominate control of the governance of the sport, is that you and they don't like this format. You feel that only those who can afford to play on an ridiculously expensive circuit of private cashspiels should have some exclusive right to do whatever the hell they want to do in the sport and to hell with everyone else in Canada.

This is wrong.

You and every team have the right to relocate to a part of the country and enter that area's zone playdowns and compete-against every other athlete with a dream and passion for the game. But you don't want to do that.

Athlete's on professional sports teams relocate to their teams city every season and live there, pay taxes and are a part of the community. They don't complain, its part of the lifestyle and the job.

Why should WCT teams get a special privilege to avoid doing the same? Almost every province has made adjustments to their playdown formats to accommodate high performing tour teams,

The National championships have now even given a pity spot to the top team on the tour who wasn't good enough to win their respective provincial championships. That's right folks. Not good enough to beat the rest of so-called (in Gerry's eyes) 'Tier Two and recreational teams' in your province? don't worry, there's a back door pity spot available for you.

How many more special exceptions have to be made to satisfy a select few who feel they have a privilege they haven't earned through competition?

If four people from four different parts of Canada want to band together and form a team, there is nothing-absolutely nothing-to stop them from doing so. All they have to do is pick a place, move there and become a team. If they're so focused and determined to succeed in their goal, then this is a minor hurdle for them to step over. If they're not prepared to take this step, why should they be given special privilege over others?

Our national championships have a proven, historic track record of World and Olympic champions and medalist. Just because two teams stumble, once, is not a clarion call to rip apart our process and give it all to small few who laughingly call themselves professionals.

If anything, since both those teams resulted from a system heavily dominated by a systems largely created by you and those self appointed few- the CTRS, SLAMS and WCT, it is your system that should be scrutinized and revamped?

Perhaps if we'd simply sent our previous years National Champs-instead of putting them through a long, mostly unnecessary and exhausting process-we might have medalled in Korea.

But regardless, do not claim our system is unfair to the 'top' teams. It is fair to all and equal. The problem is you and those teams don't want it to be equal.

The counterpoint is that our national championship restricted to one entry per jurisdiction - sure people can move around, but I think that you're adding to the list of sacrifices these people are already making. Don't you think lessening the burden placed upon athletes by the national body is worth talking about?

You might think having a cluster of good teams all training with each other, playing cash games, pushing each other to be better might result in superior outcomes. In our model, all but one of them have to sit at home and watch unranked teams play in the national championship.

Maybe someone with more experience can comment - why do we have the Canada Cup?

quote:Originally posted by nervous_times21 The counterpoint is that our national championship restricted to one entry per jurisdiction - sure people can move around, but I think that you're adding to the list of sacrifices these people are already making. Don't you think lessening the burden placed upon athletes by the national body is worth talking about?

You might think having a cluster of good teams all training with each other, playing cash games, pushing each other to be better might result in superior outcomes. In our model, all but one of them have to sit at home and watch unranked teams play in the national championship.

Maybe someone with more experience can comment - why do we have the Canada Cup?

lol. More experience? 40 years playing competitively, appearances at national events, tour victories, etc. What constitutes your idea of experience?

One entry per jurisdiction irks you? Why? Because you have to play well and beat every one else in that jurisdiction? Or because they might beat you?

If you are seriously wanting to 'lessen the burden' on athletes then the last thing you do is put in place a ridiculously expensive format like the SLAMS and Canada Cup as your National Championships.